Site the project before the interconnection study tells you no.
KILO gives utility-scale solar, wind, and storage developers a parcel-level read on grid-infrastructure access, hosting-capacity posture, solar yield, and the cultural / regulatory cascade that decides whether a project lands or stalls — with the reasoning shown. Site the parcel before the interconnection study tells you no, and before SHPD review surprises the schedule.
Grid access is only half the question. The other half is what's under the land.
Hawaiʻi has the most aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard in the country — 100% renewable electricity by 2045 under HRS §269-92 — and roughly 5.8 kWh/m²/day of solar irradiance, about 17% above the national average. The economics for utility-scale solar are among the strongest in the United States.
The siting friction is also among the highest. Cultural-resource review under HRS §6E-42 typically requires an Archaeological Inventory Survey for utility-scale solar; Ka Paʻakai O Ka ʻAina (94 Hawaiʻi 31, 2000) adds an agency three-prong-analysis obligation on Conservation-district parcels and other state- permit pathways; shoreline setback, watershed, and groundwater- protection layers compress the buildable area further. Pick the wrong parcel and the project economics collapse before the PPA is signed.
Two axes at once: can it connect, and can it be permitted.
Most siting tools give you half. Grid-only platforms tell you transmission and substation proximity but say nothing about whether the land itself is permittable. Regulatory tools tell you about cultural and environmental risk but treat energy infrastructure as out of scope. KILO surfaces both in one read, per parcel, with every conclusion traced to its source.
The feasibility signals — grid access, solar resource, developable terrain, and IRA §48E incentive context — roll up into a single Renewable Siting read: one band per axis with a plain-language headline that names the binding constraint ("strong solar resource and grid access; developable terrain is the binding constraint here"). It's a siting- feasibility screen, not a composite score and not a production estimate — the cultural / §6E cascade stays a separate read, so connecting and permitting are never collapsed into one number.
The 12-month parcel vs the 36-month parcel.
Two parcels with the same transmission distance can have completely different timelines once SHPD and the Land Use Commission are in scope. A parcel in the Urban district with low cultural-resource sensitivity and a clean shoreline read may move on a normal 12-month entitlement window; a neighboring parcel in Conservation with documented historic properties and a Ka Paʻakai trigger can stretch to 36 months before ground disturbance is permitted.
The grid-access read is necessary but not sufficient. KILO surfaces the full cascade so a candidate-parcel comparison is honest about both axes at once.
Three steps, before the LOI is signed.
Tell us about the deal you'd use it on.
Access is invite-only during beta. Tell us about an RFP target, a candidate parcel set, or a class of acquisitions — the more concrete, the faster we triage and the more useful the first conversation.